If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am kinda shocked that the sling decreases the strength of the rope by 40%!

Originally Posted by dejoha

I thought the straight bury method was much better and didn't reduce the strength that much. The Samson instructions show a weave bury at the dead eye, which would reduce the strength more than a straight bury, as I understand.

That's how I understand it too. The brummel or locked brummel is what derates the rope so much. A simple buried eye, like we all use, doesn't do that. I think our Whoopie Slings and UCR's remain at about 90% or thereabouts.

A standard eye splice has a taper in the bury. The taper prevents a sudden transition, which is where lines generally fail.

With a whoopie sling a taper in the bury of the adjustable loop isn't possible. My theory is that the weak link in a whoopie is where the tail exits the bury. I also believe that's why Samson uses a locked brummel in the fixed eye, because it is stable with just a short bury and may not be the weak link. A chain, or whoopie, is only as strong as the weakest link.

Also gotta agree with Rain Man. Where life safety is involved a 10:1 safety margin makes sense and I think we are too often well below that. Maybe because a fall would just be a foot or so we don't have to go with a full 10:1 but it's something to think about.

Valid points to consider, but with the high tensile strength of the Amsteel Blue I can't imagine one of these failing.

I'm sure there could be an exception, but it would almost have to be some type of neglect like abraded or nicked rope. I'll definitely treat these like all of my equipment, with some amount of care. And everything gets inspected regularly.

Valid points to consider, but with the high tensile strength of the Amsteel Blue I can't imagine one of these failing.

I'm sure there could be an exception, but it would almost have to be some type of neglect like abraded or nicked rope. I'll definitely treat these like all of my equipment, with some amount of care. And everything gets inspected regularly.

Jerry

Agreed... I think with the loads hammockers put on the line... Its a non issue.

I also puzzled over the coolness of eyesplices vs the length they consume.
I compared my three hammock lines: (That is an 18" ruler, by the way)

The first is my old line which is just tied together - nice and short
The second is eyespliced on both ends - too long! Arrrrrgh!
The third is me messing around and is not too clear - I made an eyesplice in each end of the line, both around the same ring. I treat the line as a loop and feed the loop through the sewn channel of the hammock, then dropped the loop over the ring. Ta Da!

Agreed... I think with the loads hammockers put on the line... Its a non issue.

Here's a chart for determining just how much load hammockers put on lines. I forget where I stole this from. Sorry. And keep in mind, this is static weight. True real-life weight is dynamic.

You can see on the far left side of the chart that if the two hammock lines were hanging straight down (hmmmm.... mountain climbing rigging for a night on El Capitan maybe?), each line carries half the total weight, which makes sense, with no multiplier for an off-vertical angle. As the hammock lines get more and more taunt (closer to horizontal), the effective weight can go way up (to infinity, in theory).

I just don't get guys who put 200lbs into a hammock and then publicize that a 1,000lb-rated line (expressly intended for non-human-safety applications) is good enough. All to save an ounce. Not in my book. YMMV and HYOH, though.

Part of my problem is that I'm an ex-caver, where rigging forces really were "life and death." Even though that's not normally the case in hammocking, I still don't rig my hammock over rocks I wouldn't want my backbone to do any destructive testing on! But that's just me. I'm such an amateur knuckle-head, that I want a generous margin of error when it comes to my spine relying on my DIY. LOL

Dynamic loads can be tricky .... I mean, how many times do you turn over in your hammock per night? Each time will see a spike in the loading on the line .... 10 times factor of safety is a good place to be, however, I think it important to realize that a 220 lb man would most likely be fine with 1800 lb rated line

As one of my old engineering professors would say ... be careful with your factors of safety for the ground is hard and gravity unforgiving ....

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Here's a chart for determining just how much load hammockers put on lines. I forget where I stole this from. Sorry. And keep in mind, this is static weight. True real-life weight is dynamic.

You can see on the far left side of the chart that if the two hammock lines were hanging straight down (hmmmm.... mountain climbing rigging for a night on El Capitan maybe?), each line carries half the total weight, which makes sense, with no multiplier for an off-vertical angle. As the hammock lines get more and more taunt (closer to horizontal), the effective weight can go way up (to infinity, in theory).

I just don't get guys who put 200lbs into a hammock and then publicize that a 1,000lb-rated line (expressly intended for non-human-safety applications) is good enough. All to save an ounce. Not in my book. YMMV and HYOH, though.

Part of my problem is that I'm an ex-caver, where rigging forces really were "life and death." Even though that's not normally the case in hammocking, I still don't rig my hammock over rocks I wouldn't want my backbone to do any destructive testing on! But that's just me. I'm such an amateur knuckle-head, that I want a generous margin of error when it comes to my spine relying on my DIY. LOL